##PAGE1##

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

220

CRM-M-67955-2025

DECIDED ON 22.12.2025

SWEETY

….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS for

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.165 dated 04.06.2025

under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station

Ambala City, District Ambala.

2. On 03.12.2025, following order was passed: -

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of

the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

in case FIR No.165 dated 04.06.2025 registered under Sections

18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police

Station Ambala City, District Ambala.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

04.06.2025, SI Kulvinder Singh along with other police officials

was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information,

apprehended one person, namely, Mandeep Singh @ Kalu, who

POONAM

2025.12.24 16:39

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

-2-

was found in conscious possession of 420 grams Opium.

Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-

accused Mandeep Singh @ Kalu.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He

further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the

spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with

the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner

has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the

disclosure statement made by co-accused Mandeep Singh @

Kalu. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other

evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question

and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused

during her custodial interrogation is not admissible. No

recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel

further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join

the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the inves-

tigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan,

AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State

and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 22.12.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investi-

gation within a week from today and would appear as and

when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with

the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, she shall be

admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The

petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under

Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance

with the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has

POONAM

2025.12.24 16:39

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

-3-

joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection

between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to

be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from ASI

SatyawanSingh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the

investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the

petitioner and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. He

has however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act

of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of

anticipatory bail.

5. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State

counsel as to whether, apart from the di